I'd imagine if that happened then any salvaged luna that was sold - it wasn't too low when the peg first fell, I think it dropped by about a third in the first 12 hours - was probably converted to coins like eth to have a stake in the ecosystem with a lot less of the risk too then.

You might want to check their website's quick explanation video on how luna works to understand this better or see if it clicks while you watch it but essentially:
The protocol is based on the idea that a UST was always equal to a dollar of luna and a dollar of luna always equalled a UST (the luna and UST could both be minted via an interaction with their smart contracts on chain). When UST finally fell and lost its peg, each UST could still be burnt for a dollar's worth of luna causing that to crash too as the price of UST wasn't sustained - essentially, you could buy a dollar of luna for 95 cents for a while (and then 60 cents). The smallest losers in this scenario were the UST holders.

Terra Luna's redit made for an interesting read for me when this initially broke and more things have come to light since - apparently SK law enforcement have made attempts to freeze the assets of anyone involved with luna (afaik - there was a tweet about stopping any reserve funds from being moved out of their accounts).

It's speculated Do Kwon did a large OTC transfer just before that to trade newly minted UST for BTC (or something).


This has probably done even worse for his repuation and the price of original Luna (since even its creator has abandoned the coin).

This was something I've been thinking would be quite interesting, I might try to get a script going if I can find ethereum blockchain data for the past few weeks as exchanges like uniswap will definitely show up there.

The more you're in crypto the more you'll realise you're best selling dips near aths (if your strategy isn't full accumulation) and best buying dips when further away from them.

29-30k was a price i had in mind since the last ath though as it seemed to be a very strong support and resistence (and still is).

If we go further down, 20-25k would be where I'd next consider buying - if you do buy more incrementally, you'll realise you can buy more as the price drops but not so much more that you'll actually regret not buying at the higher price (from my perspective anyway).

Hardware wallets are different from cold wallets.

They interact with machines that themselves interact with the Internet so they're not airgapped - there is a chance a vulnerability could still affect the device.

If you're able to keep the laptop offline then that will be the most secure way to store your keys (ahead of hardware wallets).

---

What did you mean by the "except bitcoin core" if you need to use the Internet for anything you could face vulnerabilities (eg another machine masquerades as your router and installs and runs malware in the background in your machine you assumed was safe).

I've commented on ths before and I think it's easier to do it without a smart contract in almost every case.

---

It is possible to do technically but with the addition of ensuring the asset that's leased will remain desirible and won't drop in price.

The best way (and it might be the only way for some assets) would be for the lenders/financers to be directly wanting of what they're leasing to another person - this process might already be decentralisible though and not require a smart contract.

Realistically:
To start:
Person A locks 90% stake in a smart contract that will be lent
Person B puts down a 10% deposit and provide their asset as collateral.

Continuation:
Person B pays back 9% a month for the year

Finalisation:
If payments have been kept, person B gets their asset back and person A gets their funds returned too with interest (the example above puts it at 18% profit for easy numbers).
If payments are stopped at some point, person A gets the asset and deposit and any payments up until that point.

---

Each of the people in the example above can be a group or a collection of groups.

I think it's probably about as easy as putting down cabling for the Internet in the ocean, those take a lot of insulating and are quite expensive to install but once they're there they're quite easy to repair (and they're prjbably quite cheap compared to a government's normal budget).


They already have a lot of offshore wind turbines and I think Denmark can already produce half of its electricity from wind and the UK about a quarter (those turbines are huge though too - the UK only has 11,000 which seems a very small number considering all the infrastructure running).

Does a sec regulated etf just mean that pension schemes can invest in crypto, is there actually going to be much that comes out of doing that (and can they not already buy Grayscale)?

I think if ftx did get a federally regulated bitcoin etf, they'd have to enter into a partnership with someone who already hosts those sorts of investments to give themselves a better level of reputation too and not put investors off more.

Generally 6 confirmations will make a transaction almost impossible to reverse.

I don't think we've had blocks be orphaned in a row though so 1 conformation is mostly safe.

I don't tyone would mind waiting the 6 (or the 3) if you ask them too, some blocks can take a while to be found anyway so a block could take half an hour to be mined sometimes.

Just don't accept payments with 0 confirmations unless you really trust the person.

What exactly do you want to know?

Most mixers take your funds, pool them with other funds and then give you the same amount from the pool - ultimately it allows you to blend the sources of your funds with others so you're harder to trace.

Most mixers ensure the inputs funds can't be related to output funds and chipmixer does this too by funding output funds you can withdraw before you've even made your deposit (from their reserves of chips).

The minimum amount you can send is 0m001 to receive a 0.001 chip, chips double in size so you'd get an output that corresponds to that (eg depositing 0.007btc would give you a 0.004btc, 0.002btc and 0.001btc chip you could withdraw). Anything not evenly divisible by 0.001btc will have its remainder considered a donation.

It's probably something Spain and Greece could do well having but I'm not sure if there's any other country that gets a good amount of sun.

If they tried making rooftop wind turbines that were quiet and stable enough, you'd be able to produce a lot of electricity from the UK, the Netherlands, France, Denmark, Sweden (and probably most of the rest of Northern Europe).

The rise in fuel price is probably good in a way as it might make renewables seem a more attractive source (the EU already sources half of it's electricity from renewables). I think Denmark is able to source half of its electricity usage by wind too.

It'd probably also be useful to push efficiency, a modern mobile phone uses very little electricity when compared to other things (boiling a kettle uses about the same energy as giving a phone a day's charge).

I think we're focusing too much on candles here that aren't too helpful.

April to June 2017 had 8 green weekly candles.
September to December 2020 had about 7 consecutive green closes too.
(I wasn't searching for a pattern and just picked these out randomly but...)

---

I've looked at months in the past and there are two times in history where we've closed 7-9 consecutive months in the red since 2014 (I was using months to find an average return and plucked that figure out of it quite easily a while ago - but I am remembering it from a while ago too so it might not be fully accurate now).

Do you have a link to the order?

I'm wondering if you made the limit in the right direction but that's the main thing I can think of as of now (as it says you have to set an amount as token1 per token2).

I'm wondering if the money that might've been used to dca or diversify into luna from some crypto investors have already noticeably been put into other coins and had an impact on them.

Considering $10-20bn in liquid assets might've had to be reassigned quickly and a lot of people who understood the fundamentals of luna probably converted their ust and sold each for a dollar (and dumped their luna too) - but I'm not sure if this actually happened much or how much ust there were before the crash.

Inevitably, we'll have the break the 4 year cycle at some point. I've seen threads on coins doing well while we were still seemingly in a bear market (such as aave and axs) - not that I consider us to be in a bear year yet - and I think we could also see this quite a bit again too.

I think alt coins have had shorter cycles when compared to btc too (like a <1 year cycle litecoin used to have).

I think they probably make a new token every week at this point.

They were busy trying to jump on the ico hype before, I guess they're just trying to find newer ways to do what they normally do.

@mk4 I'm now wondering if you're after a stock split like event - exchanges will be the ones that can make people change, and if you can buy a whole bitcoin derivative for a dollar (or less) there'll probably be a lot more excitement than someone spending a day's wage on 0.003BTC.


I think people will change it back but they'll normally get comfortable with the new numbers after a while.
If you're checking something daily (which is probably where you'd be more likely to change it back) it'd probably take you a few months to switch but then that's done and you've switched.


If arithmatic is involved anywhere, calculations will already be being done to convert sats to btc, at most it probably means deleting a line of code or removing a symbol (potentially a database reset too but probably not).

I think the main problem with doing this would probably be the rivalry it produces over what decimals to use.
The lightning network (purely as an example) uses pico, nano, micro and milli in it's specifier.
I would assume the satoshi came from the idea of bitcoin having at most 16 digits that way (the <21000000 being the first 8 that could possibly be represented up to).

---

Electrum preinstalls with mbtc seleted, I don't know if that changed but I think we could expect it to become bits and then sats whenever their devs seem it appropriate (bitcoin core comes preloaded in btc still though afaik).

I think all numerical values for bitcoin in bitcoin core (and the blockchain it downloads) are also represented in sats too.

---

@OP your mention of it being 1/1000 reminded me of the Indian currency system that seems to also use sets of 1000 instead of the cent system (sets of 100) the dollar, euro and pound sterling use.

You need to look at this from a differ rent perspective (and take some time to reflect while doing it).

If you put just $200 into bitcoin in 2015, you'd have $40k now. If you put $100k into bitcoin in 2015, you'd have had more than $50k last November.

It's now a case of how much money you can get into an asset, it's how much you can comfortably HOLD in it.

If you are able to, try to keep 3-6 months og an emergency fund away from anywhere you'll actually be able to touch it (such as a savings account) and then you should be a lot safer with any investments you make. Making investments that are too risky for your tolerance (or that are you can see yourself panic selling) might start to turn towards gambling and you may want to look up self help/therapy for that (attempting to fix a problem you don't have is better than ignoring one you do)

I think if wheat becomes too expensive there are a lot of other types of grains that can be used to replace it that can be produced elsewhere or are already produced in abundance such as oat, barley and rice (these can be milled).

Most of these have been discussed before or similarly, you might want to look up the stock to flow ratio ideas on bitcoin for example (if you haven't already).


I think bitcoin can adapt to growth that's a bit exponential too in this case (and has had to). Early asic miners had very large chips and now they're probably the smallest they can be (size effecting efficiency directly due to things like wire sizes).

In terms of price it'll match that miner efficiency will be proportional to price, but price will also be proportional to hash rate (if price increases, hash rate normally follows)


This wouldn't have been thought of strait at the inception but it is probably something that's come out since asics are a thing.

It was probably left for a few years by the original developer sjust to see how things like mining evolved, if asics weren't created it'd likely still be a very strong network imo (there'd still be GPUs mining it).

It might be worth mentioning that making self moderated threads offering services here while you're a newbie might raise suspicions with both the mods and the people you're looking to work for - you're better off just waiting for mods.

It probably isn't much to worry about either because anyone reading the thread will see your post first and will have clicked it for that - also if your report is marked as "unhandled" it could mean the mods haven't got round to checking it yet (they notice obvious things very quickly, the more subtlething can take up to a few days but sometimes they're fast too).